gen 1:3 Light

[IisJustMe]

... not for this:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

This factual account of how some mere physicists slowed the speed of light to the pace of rushhour traffic (but not in Kansas City, where 38 mph would be amazing at rushhour) calls into question what we think we know about light speed. It calls into question the certainty of these statements:

IA light year is the distance that light can travel in a year, so pretty simple so far...also, pulled this up from wikipedia:

A light year (or light-year, or lightyear), symbol ly, is the distance light travels in one year: about 9.461 × 1015 metres (9.461 petametres), or about 5.879 × 1012 (nearly six trillion) miles.

And, by definition, the speed of light is - Since the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299 792 458 m/s (which is exactly 670 616 629 537/1397 mph) by the definition of metre, one light year is exactly equal to 9 460 730 472 580 800 m (which is exactly 5 878 625 373 183 849/1397 mi).

If mere mortals are able to change the speed of light, without God's intervention, what we think we know about the properties of light can never be stated with certainty again. The linked article goes to great pains to explain why this doesn't change anything about the alleged upper limits arbitrarily placed on light speed by Einstein, but the fact of the matter is, if light can be slowed, it can almost certainly be sped up. And as such, the plausibility of stars seemingly more than 6,000 lightyears away actually being visible is again in play.

 

[Poke]

I have no idea why they believed in geocentricism. NOt Biblical.

Geocentrism was atheist dogma. Ancient Christians who believed in geocentrism were the ancient equivalents of today's Theistic Evolutionists. They took the non-biblical beliefs about nature and tied those beliefs to the Bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Geocentrism was atheist dogma. Ancient Christians who believed in geocentrism were the ancient equivalents of today's Theistic Evolutionists. They took the non-biblical beliefs about nature and tied those beliefs to the Bible.

this is confirmed by this ancient document .
all true Christians have been flat earthers fighting even geocentricism as demonic in origin.

see:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html

a gem from glaudys where he discusses the pagan and ungodly origins of a spherical earth.

The opinion therefore which we hold is in no wise adverse to such views, except only with respect to the motion and revolution of the heavens -- a theory subversive alike to all divine scripture of both the Old and New Testament, and of Christian doctrine. But to inquire further into these matters we have no leisure; for such knowledge is unprofitable to us who have access to a more profitable knowledge, which imparts to our soul a good and beneficent hope which God hath promised he will give to those who believe in him, while those who act unjustly he has doomed to perdition. But with God's help we shall delineate the figure of the earth on the reverse side in its northern portion, that we may be able again in turn to delineate in turn the circuit of the heavenly bodies -- and it is thus.

for it is perfectly obvious to anyone with the Holy Spirit that the earth remains still, that heaven is above our heads and hell beneath our feet.

i am agreeing with the poster, not debating or disputing anything. therefore this post is acceptable under the rules of the forum. i am merely adding ammunition to his position, showing him an excellent Christian manuscript from the 7thC that confirms his position....

 

[Poke]

this is confirmed by this ancient document .
all true Christians have been flat earthers fighting even geocentricism as demonic in origin.

I was thinking more along the lines of Ptolemic, Aristotlean, and Babylonian beliefs of geocentrism, rather than of Cosmasian geocentrism. But, as long as you agree with me, you're making progress.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

i am agreeing with the poster, not debating or disputing anything. therefore this post is acceptable under the rules of the forum.

It's posts like this that would justify banning all posts from noncreationists.

 

[ChetSinger]

It's posts like this that would justify banning all posts from noncreationists.

I share your frustration. Some of the TE's seem to feel so compelled to 'fix' us that they're willing to come here and violate forum rules to do it.

But I think a relevant verse for us is "Good sense makes a man slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense". After all, they're brothers and sisters. Maybe we'll joke about it in the resurrection.

 

[djbcrawford]

I may be wrong, but is light not the basic form of energy? It has some unique properties behaving both as a wave and a stream of particles. Could the light not refer to the first energy being created by God? In the beginning God created energy would keep everyone happy.

As to day periods, time doesn't really exist as such, we just count things to keep track of it (i.e. number of earth revolutions, number of sun revolutions, etc..).

For this information to be written, it had to be revealed by God then either written down immediately or passed orally from person to person until it could be. As God often revealed things in dreams, perhaps on day one God shows Moses creation stage one. Moses awakes and writes...day one, and so on.

 

[sjdennis]

I may be wrong, but is light not the basic form of energy? It has some unique properties behaving both as a wave and a stream of particles. Could the light not refer to the first energy being created by God? In the beginning God created energy would keep everyone happy.

As to day periods, time doesn't really exist as such, we just count things to keep track of it (i.e. number of earth revolutions, number of sun revolutions, etc..).

For this information to be written, it had to be revealed by God then either written down immediately or passed orally from person to person until it could be. As God often revealed things in dreams, perhaps on day one God shows Moses creation stage one. Moses awakes and writes...day one, and so on.

Then you still have the order of the "days" entirely wrong for any evolutionary process to occur. The only reason to believe the days are anything other than literal 24 hour days is to fit in a long-age timescale, and / or biological evolution. If the day order does not work for this, there is no point saying the days are not 24 hour. Please re-read post #15, this post explains this in detail.

 

[Poke]

I may be wrong, but is light not the basic form of energy? It has some unique properties behaving both as a wave and a stream of particles. Could the light not refer to the first energy being created by God? In the beginning God created energy would keep everyone happy.

Geneses goes to some effort to equate that light with daylight, rather than just some energy.

Ancient man knew that daylight came from the sun and that starlight came from the stars. Ancient man didn't know about the time it takes that light to get to Earth, but would have thought light traveled instantly.

The Bible doesn't error in implying that light travels instantly. It says light came first, which defies ancient understanding of light, and repudiates the modern objection that starlight takes too long to reach the Earth from distant stars.

Whether there's a natural or only a supernatural explanation is another issue.

 

[djbcrawford]

Then you still have the order of the "days" entirely wrong for any evolutionary process to occur. The only reason to believe the days are anything other than literal 24 hour days is to fit in a long-age timescale, and / or biological evolution. If the day order does not work for this, there is no point saying the days are not 24 hour. Please re-read post #15, this post explains this in detail.

I believe the bible on this in the order things appear as this is physical information. However when we talk about time, this is an abstract concept. As stated in post 15 a Yom is a period of light followed by a period of darkness. Without the sun how could this be a day as we know it?

As for evolution, it has the advantage of being wrong when ever it want's. How many times has a science programne started with the words "we used to think that, but now we think this - which it then goes on the proclaim is totally true just like it did with the previous theory). Evolution fails for me more in it's inablility to explain HOW stuff happens, other than by saying "it just did, ok" than it does in it's order of how things happened.

I would have thought plants would come before animals, at least some sort of fungus or alga. And I would say birds are closer to fish than reptiles (they "swim" in the air. scales - feathers).

 

[sjdennis]

I believe the bible on this in the order things appear as this is physical information. However when we talk about time, this is an abstract concept. As stated in post 15 a Yom is a period of light followed by a period of darkness. Without the sun how could this be a day as we know it?

As for evolution, it has the advantage of being wrong when ever it want's. How many times has a science programne started with the words "we used to think that, but now we think this - which it then goes on the proclaim is totally true just like it did with the previous theory). Evolution fails for me more in it's inablility to explain HOW stuff happens, other than by saying "it just did, ok" than it does in it's order of how things happened.

I would have thought plants would come before animals, at least some sort of fungus or alga. And I would say birds are closer to fish than reptiles (they "swim" in the air. scales - feathers).

So, what do you actually believe? Was the earth created or did it evolve? What order did the creation happen in? You don't appear to believe evolution - why do you try to believe the days are anything other than 24-hour periods? When was the sun created? You are trying to say what I said in post #15 was wrong, but I do not know what you think we should believe instead, and especially why we should believe this. Please enlighten me!

A Yom is a period of light followed by a period of darkness. This does NOT need the sun, what it needs is light falling from one side on a rotating earth. Whether this light comes from the sun or a supernatural source is irrelevant - either will work.

 

[djbcrawford]

So, what do you actually believe? Was the earth created or did it evolve? What order did the creation happen in? You don't appear to believe evolution - why do you try to believe the days are anything other than 24-hour periods? When was the sun created? You are trying to say what I said in post #15 was wrong, but I do not know what you think we should believe instead, and especially why we should believe this. Please enlighten me!

A Yom is a period of light followed by a period of darkness. This does NOT need the sun, what it needs is light falling from one side on a rotating earth. Whether this light comes from the sun or a supernatural source is irrelevant - either will work.

The answer is I don't know. I don't believe in Evolution in the way it's taught or it's explanation on how stuff happens, but Science is simply observing stuff and making theories about it. While the theories may be wrong, the observations should be right.

Untimately I believe God created everything one way or the other. There's no way a dead universe could create life unless it was bursting with the potential for life. For evolution to work it would have to been planned to work, it couldn't have happened by chance. For animals to survive in a changing environment they would need the ability to evolve to some extent (micro-evolution - within species, not between species) so would need to be created that way.

God's timescales seem so different to ours. I mean he waits 3-4000 years after Adams fall to bring Christ into the world. The Children of Israel spend 200 years as captives in Egypt before he chooses Moses to lead them out. God's ways are not our ways...

He just seems more subtle than bam, bam, bam, six days, done. And what's with the resting on the 7th day? He's God. he doesn't need to rest?

 

[sjdennis]

The answer is I don't know. I don't believe in Evolution in the way it's taught or it's explanation on how stuff happens, but Science is simply observing stuff and making theories about it. While the theories may be wrong, the observations should be right.

Untimately I believe God created everything one way or the other. There's no way a dead universe could create life unless it was bursting with the potential for life. For evolution to work it would have to been planned to work, it couldn't have happened by chance. For animals to survive in a changing environment they would need the ability to evolve to some extent (micro-evolution - within species, not between species) so would need to be created that way.

God's timescales seem so different to ours. I mean he waits 3-4000 years after Adams fall to bring Christ into the world. The Children of Israel spend 200 years as captives in Egypt before he chooses Moses to lead them out. God's ways are not our ways...

He just seems more subtle than bam, bam, bam, six days, done. And what's with the resting on the 7th day? He's God. he doesn't need to rest?

The issue really comes down to whether we believe the account given in the Bible or not.

It is great that you have concluded that evolution as taught in schools doesn't work. That is a vital thing to understand. Species do adapt to their environments somewhat, there is natural and/or imposed selection at work that can cause species to change in some way. However these only cause variations within a created kind, not onward-and-upward evolution, fish to monkeys stuff.

So, evolution isn't the answer. So what is? Obviously some form of creation.

Now, we have an account of creation given in Genesis. Traditional church teaching on the bible is that it is the inspired word of God, and can be relied on to be 100% true. The bible says that God created in six days. Why should we not believe this?

God can do things however He likes. He could have created everything in an instant if he liked. However, the Bible says that He took six days. God is all-powerful. He can take six days if he likes. God doesn't need to rest. But He can rest if He likes. God is God, and He does what He pleases, whether or not we feel he had to / should have done it!

There is one good reason for God to take six days and rest for one. This is VERY CLEARLY stated in Exodus 20:8-11:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is , and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Although God did not need to take six days, He did it to set an example for us, showing us how to run our working week so we didn't get too exhausted, and set aside time to spend with Him. This passage is bang in the middle of the 10 Commandments - if there is any one passage in the entire Bible we can take as reliable, it is this passage - THIS PASSAGE WAS WRITTEN ON STONE BY THE VERY FINGER OF GOD!

 

[FallingWaters]

I find it very interesting that I can post a refutation of the day-age theory from scripture on a very busy forum, after which the discussion immediately stops for 20 days, and 23 days later there has been no post to the contrary. What's up day-agers? What are your thoughts on it?

I'm not saying you have to argue with me, the point of my post was to point out the errors with the day-age theory. After reading my post, what do you now believe? Are you reconsidering the theory? Or do you have other thoughts on the scripture that you could post here? I don't like to kill the discussion!

You did a good job presenting the information.

 

[FallingWaters]

... not for this:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

This factual account of how some mere physicists slowed the speed of light to the pace of rushhour traffic (but not in Kansas City, where 38 mph would be amazing at rushhour) calls into question what we think we know about light speed. It calls into question the certainty of these statements:
If mere mortals are able to change the speed of light, without God's intervention, what we think we know about the properties of light can never be stated with certainty again. The linked article goes to great pains to explain why this doesn't change anything about the alleged upper limits arbitrarily placed on light speed by Einstein, but the fact of the matter is, if light can be slowed, it can almost certainly be sped up. And as such, the plausibility of stars seemingly more than 6,000 lightyears away actually being visible is again in play.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to IisJustMe again.

Awesome!

 

[LoG]

I was thinking more along the lines of Ptolemic, Aristotlean, and Babylonian beliefs of geocentrism, rather than of Cosmasian geocentrism. But, as long as you agree with me, you're making progress.

Then you fall into the same error rmwilliams did, although he knows better as do the most TE's.
If a geocentric model was not believed during the OT times, Johua would not have commanded the sun to stand still but the Earth. By strict definition the geocentric model is relevant whether the Earth is flat or spherical.

For a little history about who promoted the flat earth thinking see this page: Who invented the flat Earth?

If mere mortals are able to change the speed of light, without God's intervention, what we think we know about the properties of light can never be stated with certainty again. The linked article goes to great pains to explain why this doesn't change anything about the alleged upper limits arbitrarily placed on light speed by Einstein, but the fact of the matter is, if light can be slowed, it can almost certainly be sped up. And as such, the plausibility of stars seemingly more than 6,000 lightyears away actually being visible is again in play.

Barry Setterfield has some interesting thoughts on the speed of light being much greater in historical times than today. Setterfield Simplified


How does YEC explain these verses:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

What is remarkable about these verses for those who didn't spot it, is that the stars supposedly were not created until day 4 and yet here the stars were singing while God was forming the foundations of the Earth, which to YEC thinking is day 1.
It is not the norm to put in foundations after a structure has been raised which we know is the case since plant life had already been created. It would therefore be logical to assume that the stars were already in existence on day 1. Which is what Gap Theorists have been saying for a few thousand years already.

 

[FallingWaters]

How does YEC explain these verses:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

What is remarkable about these verses for those who didn't spot it, is that the stars supposedly were not created until day 4 and yet here the stars were singing while God was forming the foundations of the Earth, which to YEC thinking is day 1.
It is not the norm to put in foundations after a structure has been raised which we know is the case since plant life had already been created. It would therefore be logical to assume that the stars were already in existence on day 1. Which is what Gap Theorists have been saying for a few thousand years already.

Why can't the morning stars sing together on day four? In the grand scheme of things, 2000 years later, referring to Creation Week, does the writer really have to specify- and then 3 days later...?

 

[LoG]

Why can't the morning stars sing together on day four? In the grand scheme of things, 2000 years later, referring to Creation Week, does the writer really have to specify- and then 3 days later...?

The way the verses read for me, it specifically implies that the morning stars were singing when God was laying the foundations and setting the capstone.

 

[FallingWaters]

The way the verses read for me, it specifically implies that the morning stars were singing when God was laying the foundations and setting the capstone.

I have never taken it that way. I have always taken it to mean that when God was done His Creating, there was a big celebration in heaven.

 

[FallingWaters]

On the other hand, here is the opinion of a theologian and Bible scholar I highly respect, who was educated in the original languages- Adam Clarke (1762-1832):

Job 38:7
"When the morning stars sang together—This must refer to some intelligent beings who existed before the creation of the visible heavens and earth: and it is supposed that this and the following clause refer to the same beings; that by the sons of God, and the morning stars, the angelic host is meant; as they are supposed to be first, though perhaps not chief, in the order of creation. For the latter clause the Chaldee has, “All the troops of angels.” Perhaps their creation may be included in the term heavens, Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” These witnessed the progress of the creation; and, when God had finished his work, celebrated his wisdom and power in the highest strains."